Smirnov, Mikhail Yurievich. The path to the profession: Interview with Mikhail Smirnov Mikhail Yurievich Smirnov

For the first time, they became the full owners of red jackets and the title of “Immortals”.

Biography

In 1973 he graduated from Elektrostal school.

In 1984 he graduated from the Faculty of Journalism of Moscow State University.

Currently, he is the editor-in-chief of the portal “Alcohol. Ru”, and an employee of several publications.

What? Where? When?

He first appeared in the club during the International Games in Moscow on May 6, 1988 as the captain of one of the teams at the qualifying games of the international club “What? Where? When?". He captained the club's international team at the game on December 29, 1988.

The next time Smirnov's team sits down at the gaming table is in 1994-1994. In the game on December 24, 1994, he received a challenge golden chip as the team with the highest intelligence index in the club and an offer to play for red jackets and the title of “Immortals”. If the team refuses, Georgy Zharkov’s team will sit at the table. The team agrees and wins the red jackets with a score of 6:5.

Command structure

1. M. Smirnov - captain
2. L. Timofeev
3. Maxim Potashev
4. E. Emelyanov
5. S. Ovchinnikov
6. B. Levin

1. Maxim Potashev
2. Boris Levin
3. Evgeny Emelyanov
4. Sergei Ovchinnikov
5. Leonid Timofeev
6. Mikhail Smirnov - captain

see also

Write a review of the article "Smirnov, Mikhail Yurievich"

Links

• [chtogdekogda.rf/profile/85/ Mikhail Smirnov] on the portal [chtogdekogda.rf “What? Where? When?: expert blogs, pre- and post-game interviews and much more]

An excerpt characterizing Smirnov, Mikhail Yurievich

“Ti ti ti, a d"autres, [tell this to others," said the Frenchman, waving his finger in front of his nose and smiling. "Tout a l"heure vous allez me conter tout ca," he said. – Charme de rencontrer un compatriote. Eh bien! qu"allons nous faire de cet homme? [Now you'll tell me all this. It's very nice to meet a compatriot. Well! What should we do with this man?] - he added, addressing Pierre as if he were his brother. Even if Pierre was not a Frenchman, having once received this highest title in the world, he could not renounce it, said the expression on the face and tone of the French officer. To the last question, Pierre once again explained who Makar Alekseich was, explained that just before their arrival this a drunken, crazy man stole a loaded pistol, which they did not have time to take away from him, and asked that his act be left unpunished.
The Frenchman stuck out his chest and made a royal gesture with his hand.
– Vous m"avez sauve la vie. Vous etes Francais. Vous me demandez sa grace? Je vous l"accorde. Qu"on emmene cet homme, [You saved my life. You are a Frenchman. Do you want me to forgive him? I forgive him. Take this man away," the French officer said quickly and energetically, taking the hand of the one who had earned him for saving his life into the French Pierre, and went with him to the house.
The soldiers who were in the yard, hearing the shot, entered the vestibule, asking what had happened and expressing their readiness to punish those responsible; but the officer strictly stopped them.
“On vous demandera quand on aura besoin de vous,” he said. The soldiers left. The orderly, who had meanwhile managed to be in the kitchen, approached the officer.
“Capitaine, ils ont de la soupe et du gigot de mouton dans la cuisine,” he said. - Faut il vous l "apporter? [Captain, they have soup and fried lamb in the kitchen. Would you like to bring it?]

As part of the Research Work Competition for Young Scientists, the Sreda service began a series of interviews with religious researchers. One of the first to support this initiative was the famous St. Petersburg scientist, sociologist and religious scholar Mikhail Yuryevich Smirnov.

“A religious scholar must have an idea of ​​the living real
synchronous state of religious life"

Mikhail Yurievich Smirnov,

Doctor of Sociological Sciences,
Associate Professor of St. Petersburg State University

“I went into the lobby, there were two stairs - to the right and to the left.” Faculty selection

Until some time in my life, as they say, I never dreamed that I would have anything to do with religion. Upbringing and school education were naturally non-religious; there were no so-called practicing believers around.

I come from a military family and was born in a garrison. All my childhood years I was convinced that I would be a military man. I actually had the opportunity to serve in the army later. But when I finished school, I realized that with my eyesight I couldn’t become a professional soldier.

Then who should I be next? At school I always liked history, I thought: I’ll become a historian. I went to look for the history department. I didn’t want to go to a pedagogical university; the prospect of becoming a history teacher didn’t excite me. I arrived at the university. I went into the lobby of the building on the Mendeleevskaya Line, there were two staircases - to the right and to the left. One leads to the Faculty of Philosophy, the second to the History Faculty, but there were no signs. I went to the right, I looked - there was a corridor, portraits were hanging. Some names were familiar to me: Hegel, Spinoza... There was a huge wall newspaper hanging. Philosophy students did it, it was very interesting and witty, I remember I stood and studied it for half an hour. On the stairs I read an announcement that schoolchildren were being recruited for the small faculty of philosophy, which I did not find at the history department.

Then they showed me how to get into the history department, where I finally decided to enter. But in parallel with school, I began to study minor philosophy. Twice a week I came to Mendeleevskaya, where classes were held, taught by senior students. The guys were very enthusiastic, they talked about philosophy with great interest. So, after graduating from school, I still enrolled in philosophy.

“Whatever I was!” Studying at a university

I didn’t have enough points for the full-time course, but I managed to get into the evening course. At that time it was impossible to study in the evening if you did not work. Got a job immediately. Whatever I was! But it was a very good school, thanks to which I began to gain life experience.

And from the 3rd evening year I was drafted into the army. The service was tough, and the school was also good. After it, I returned to the university as an evening student, and later transferred to full-time study. I was already a different person, I had matured, I consciously wanted to learn.

"Hegel is a philosopher, and I am a philosopher"

In the evening there were two philosophical specializations: Diamatism and History. At that time we had only one philosophy - Marxist-Leninist, it included dialectical materialism and historical materialism. Now Diamat has been transformed into “ontology and theory of knowledge”, and Historical Mathematics - into “social philosophy” :) I chose Historical Mathematics. He continued this specialization as a full-time student.

I wrote coursework on “military” topics: “The essence and social nature of wars”, “Types of wars of the modern era”. My supervisor is Professor Konstantin Semenovich Pigrov, a very interesting philosopher, who is still alive and working. He suggested that I write a thesis on the profile of the Department of History and Mathematics - on the philosophy of scientific and technological revolution. The entire department was engaged in scientific and technological progress, philosophical problems of scientific and technological revolution... In order for me to fit in here with my “military interest”, I was offered to take a topic on military technology. I defended my thesis on the topic “Military equipment in the life of society.”

I graduated from the Philosophy Department of the Faculty of Philosophy with a degree in Philosophy and was awarded the qualification “Philosopher”. My diploma says that I am a philosopher. Hegel is a philosopher, and I am a philosopher :)

“I would take you, but you understand...” Graduate school

I failed to get into graduate school. I had two graduate school positions lined up. But I frightened one professor, Samuil Aronovich Kugel from the Institute of Sociology, with my military theme; he treated me without much desire. In second place, head. the department turned out to be my namesake. In those years, according to an unspoken rule, it was not customary for teachers and graduate students in the same department to have the same last name; this aroused some suspicion. “I would take you, but you understand...” she just said.

What to do? Circumstances helped here. Since the 1960s The subject “Fundamentals of Scientific Atheism” was introduced in universities, which was taught in all faculties and departments of the university. There were not enough teachers, so candidates began to be selected from graduates. This subject is not my profile; I only passed the exam on “Theory and History of Atheism” to Professor Shakhnovich with 4 points. But the educational indicators were decent, historical mathematics and scientific atheism “stood side by side”, and the biography in this case already helped :)

"...like Demosthenes before the sea." First teaching experience

Of course, I came across the topic of religion when I was studying. Sometimes I was additionally interested in something related to religion. But by and large I had no clear idea about this. I urgently armed myself with some textbooks, manuals, scientific books. I should have been teaching in September, but I was “lucky”: they sent me and my students to “potato work” for a whole month, there’s not much to read there. So I prepared.
I started teaching in October. First - at the mathmech, and there the flows were huge, up to 200 people. The guys are malicious, they hang up posters like “Blessed is he who believes,” and you read to them scientific atheism. But I learned like Demosthenes before the sea: when you stand in front of such an audience, and you need to talk about “the scientific foundations of the CPSU policy in relation to religion and the church”... Try to read this topic, and even so that they listen... I learned.

"Homegrown Polls". Experiments on students and the first teacher.

I also conducted home-grown surveys among my students - it was important for me to understand their state of mind. To organize a survey, you had to learn how to do it correctly, read something, but there was almost nothing to read. But I was lucky. In 1983, from some of the teachers from the department of “history of Marxist-Leninist philosophy”, the department of “history and theory of atheism” was formed, and in 1984 Vladimir Dmitrievich Kobetsky came to head the department. Since 1990, it was called the department of “history and philosophy of religion,” now it is called the “department of philosophy of religion and religious studies.” Kobetsky led it for 5 years, now he is already retired.

You need to know about this scientist. Kobetsky is one of the few who fundamentally studied the sociology of religion and atheism in Soviet times. In 1969 he defended his Ph.D. thesis, a copy of which he recently presented to me. It contains a description of the methodology for studying religiosity, for those years at a very modern level, despite the fact that then the entire sociology of religion was home-grown. I learned a lot from Vladimir Dmitrievich.

He was the coordinator of the interdepartmental sociological group formed in 1960–70. in Leningrad from employees of the State Medical University of Radiology and Art, a branch of the Institute of Sociology, a pedagogical institute, and our university. They conducted very interesting surveys. One of them was completely unique - a survey of 1000 people, representatives of different groups of the intelligentsia of Leningrad, about their attitudes towards religion and atheism.
Kobetsky was almost the only one of our sociologists of religion at that time whose works were published in fragments in foreign publications on relevant topics, in particular from his book “Sociological Study of Religiosity and Atheism.” As it should be, if you are published, then you are entitled to a fee. He remembered a funny thing: they sent a money order, 20 dollars; and what does it mean for a party member or department head to receive a foreign transfer?! ... By and large, for a long time in the West only two names of Soviet sociologists of religion were known - Kobetsky and Ugrinovich.

"The religious-mythological complex in the Russian public consciousness." Doctoral.

I have a PhD in philosophy, the topic of the dissertation was “Issues of war and peace in modern Christian ideology.” But my doctoral dissertation was written on sociology. It is called “The Religious-Mythological Complex in the Russian Public Consciousness.” While working on it, I dealt with a variety of historical and contemporary material that required sociological understanding.

I will mention just one point. Cooperation with the Russian Academy of Arts, where at some time Protestant pastors from Russia and some CIS countries began to receive education through correspondence courses, became a good help to me. RHGA provides secular education, which has proven to be very useful for broadening the horizons of religious ministers.

I taught them the sociology of religion and at the same time conducted research for several years. Now I have accumulated material on approximately 400 religious associations of several Protestant denominations over time, including socio-demographic data of the participants. An interesting point: the very first set was the authorities - bishops, senior presbyters, etc. When I began to offer participation in the survey, everyone looked at the authorities: “What, will they bless or not?” - after all, it’s somehow scary, a person wants to receive such information and it is unknown how he will use it. But the authorities gave their blessing, and the work began. They are still bringing new materials.

From this data I saw some very interesting things. For example, a conflict of generations with completely different demands among Russian Protestants. Then I began to study the sociology of religion for real, that is, more thoroughly, using the research apparatus developed by this branch.

“

- For real, when did you start working on your doctorate?
- Yes, of course, because sometimes I can call myself a sociologist of religion, and sometimes not. No - because I do not have a sociological education, I am self-taught. Yes - because the sociology of religion is not yet properly institutionalized in our country. In St. Petersburg, for example, there is no institutional sociology of religion; there are only a few people who engage in research work at their own peril and risk. Well, in Moscow it’s better. According to a well-known expression, a sociologist of religion is someone who studies the sociology of religion, because throughout the country, nowhere in our country do they teach to be a sociologist of religion. I am engaged in it and make some contribution, and any science is what it is in the activities of a scientist“ .

1. Mythology and religion in the Russian consciousness: (Methodological issues of research). - St. Petersburg: Summer Garden, 2000. (ISBN 5–89740–108–Х)
2. Reformation and Protestantism: Dictionary. ― St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Publishing House. University, 2005. (ISBN 5-288-03727-2)
3. Russian society between myth and religion. Historical and sociological essay. ― St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Publishing House. University, 2006. (ISBN 5-288-03904-6)
4. Essay on the history of Russian sociology of religion: Textbook. ― St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Publishing House. University, 2008. (ISBN 978-5-288-04703-9)
5. Sociology of religion: Dictionary. - St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Publishing House. University, 2011 – 412 p. (ISBN 978-5-288-05093-0). .
6. Protestantism as a factor in the formation of Russian statehood and culture. Anthology / Comp., intro. article, comment. M. Yu. Smirnova. - St. Petersburg: RKhGA, 2012. - 848 p. . (ISBN 978-5-88812-485-7)
7. Religion and religious studies in Russia. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy, 2013. - 365 p. (ISBN 978-5-88812-586-1).
8. Religious sociology and sociology of religion: correlation and relationships // Sociological studies. 2014. No. 8. pp. 136–142.
9. Is it possible to abandon the concept of religiosity when studying religion? // Bulletin of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy. - St. Petersburg, 2015. T. 16. Issue. 2. P.145–153.
10. Chapter 3, § 3. Sociological study of religions (pp. 78–91); Chapter 7. Features of modern religiosity, § 1–4 (P. 229–244), § 6–7 (P. 247–254); Chapter 8. New religions, esoteric teachings, § 1 (P. 255–263), § 3 (P. 268–275); Chapter 9. Religious associations (pp. 276–294); Chapter 10. Religion in the system of state and law (pp. 295–307) // Religious Studies. Textbook and workshop for academic undergraduates / A. Yu. Rakhmanin, R. V. Svetlov, S. V. Pakhomov [etc.]; edited by A. Yu. Rakhmanina - M.: Yurayt Publishing House, 2016. (ISBN 978-5-9916-6086-0)

Education

Leningrad State University named after A.A. Zhdanov

Work experience in specialty: 30 years

Smirnov Mikhail Yurievich (June 24, 1955, Barabash village, Primorsky Territory) - Doctor of Sociological Sciences, Candidate of Philosophy, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Philosophy at Leningrad State University named after A.S. Pushkin.

Higher education: Faculty of Philosophy of Leningrad State University in 1979, majoring in Philosophy.

Topic of the candidate's dissertation: “Issues of war and peace in modern Christian ideology” (1986). Topic of doctoral dissertation: “Religious-mythological complex in the Russian public consciousness. Historical and sociological research" (2006).

Participates in the editorial board of the scientific journal “State, Religion, Church in Russia and Abroad” (Moscow, RANEPA under the President of the Russian Federation); on the editorial board of the scientific journal "Bulletin of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University" (series "Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies"); on the international editorial board of the scientific journal “Religion and Society” (Ukraine, Yu. Fedkovich Chernivtsi National University); on the editorial board of the scientific journal “Bulletin of the Leningrad State University named after A. S. Pushkin” (responsible for the issue and scientific editor in the direction of “Philosophical Sciences”).

Member of the Bureau of the Research Committee “Sociology of Religion” of the Russian Society of Sociologists.

Scientific interests: methodology of religious studies, sociology of religion, philosophy of myth.

Books (5)

Essay on the history of Russian sociology of religion

The textbook examines the main periods in the development of the Russian sociology of religion, describes the most notable Russian personalities and authoritative research in the field of sociological study of issues of religion and society, contains a description of the problems that have arisen and the search for directions for the development of the sociology of religion in Russia, and provides a bibliography of the Russian sociology of religion.

The textbook is addressed to undergraduate and graduate students of the humanities, sociologists, religious scholars and anyone interested in the problems of sociological understanding of religion in history and in modern Russian society.

Religions of the Nordic countries

The main provisions of the educational material on the subject of the lecture course “Religions of the Northern European Countries” are outlined and methodological recommendations for its study are given.

The program of the academic discipline is presented, compiled in accordance with the State educational standard of higher professional education in specialty 032304 “Religious studies. Countries of the region” contains an annotated list of lecture topics of the course, basic and additional literature is indicated, and questions for the final knowledge control are given.

Religion and religious studies in Russia

The monograph examines some issues of the history and current position of religion in Russian society, gives a description of their religious studies in domestic science, and gives a special place to the sociology of religion in Russia.

The first part of the book contains the author’s concept of the religious-mythological complex in the public consciousness and shows its application in the analysis of diachronic and synchronic dimensions of the religious situation in Russia. The second part is devoted to the problems of the formation, development and institutionalization of Russian religious studies, clarifying the state and possibilities of the sociology of religion in our country. The third part includes two scientific and biographical essays about modern domestic researchers of religion, as well as the author’s reflections on the attitude towards religion at the origins of the ideology of Soviet society.

The Appendix contains fragments of a discussion of the history of the sciences of religion in Russia from the dialogue between St. Petersburg and Moscow religious scholars.

Reformation and Protestantism. Dictionary

The dictionary is dedicated to the most important events of the Reformation era and the history of Protestantism, one of the most widespread, along with Orthodoxy and Catholicism, areas of Christianity.

The purpose of the publication is to become an initial guide to familiarization with the most significant, in the opinion of the compiler, concepts and personalities of the Reformation and Protestantism. Priority is given to revealing the doctrinal and theological aspects of Protestantism, the history of the formation of its main varieties.

The dictionary includes one hundred articles covering the topic, a bibliography of publications on this topic in Russian, and an index of names and titles.

Sociology of religion. Dictionary

The book examines the history and current state of the sociology of religion abroad and in Russia. It contains a historical overview of the development of foreign sociology of religion since the end of the 19th century. to the beginning of the 21st century, a description of the features of the sociological study of religion in Russia, a description of the current situation and prospects for the sociology of religion.

The main part of the book is a dictionary, the articles of which are devoted to authoritative researchers, the most notable works and scientific terminology on the sociology of religion. The work concludes with a bibliography of foreign and domestic publications on the sociology of religion.

The publication is addressed to specialists in sociology, religious studies and other sciences, students of religion, undergraduate and graduate students in the humanities, and anyone interested in the sociology of religion.

: SELF-IDENTIFICATION PROBLEM

Smirnov Mikhail Yurievich

Smirnov M. Yu.

When thinking about religious studies in Russia, it is useful to ask a couple of simple and at the same time puzzling questions: did what should be called religious studies exist in the history of Russian science, and is what exists in our country under this name now religious studies?

Most likely, the first reaction to these questions among many people professionally involved in the sciences that study religion in Russia will be bewilderment (is it permissible to doubt about this) and a confident answer: of course - “yes” and “yes”, and not otherwise. And such an optimistic belief is justified in its own way: after all, so many well-deserved names and significant works are known that just listing them seems to demonstrate the powerful tradition of Russian religious studies.

Indeed, looking into the depths of time, you can, if you wish, see origins Russian religious studies already in the works of V. N. Tatishchev and M. V. Lomonosov, D. S. Anichkov and G. V. Kozitsky, G. A. Glinka and A. S. Kaisarov, M. V. Popov and M. D. Chulkov, and many other figures of the Russian Enlightenment XV??? – beginning of the X?X centuries.

As for the period from the middle of the 10th century to the first quarter of the 20th century, some experts in the historiography of the issue generally see it as a “boom” in the sciences of religion in Russia. Here, indeed, there is something for every taste: its own wonderful “mythological school” (F. I. Buslaev, A. N. Afanasyev, A. A. Potebnya, O. F. Miller) and its no less brilliant opponents (K. D. Kavelin, A. N. Pypin, A. N. Veselovsky); fundamental research on religion and the church in the history of Russia (from the “very best”, selectively - T. I. Butkevich, N. M. Galkovsky, E. E. Golubinsky, P. V. Znamensky, N. F. Kapterev, V. O. Klyuchevsky, A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, S. P. Melgunov, Metropolitan Macarius / M. P. Bulgakov /, A. S. Prugavin, A. A. Spassky, D. V. Tsvetaev); in-depth studies of the spiritual culture of Indo-European peoples, ancient societies, countries of the East (F. F. Zelinsky and B. A. Turaev, V. V. Bartold and V. P. Vasiliev, F. I. Shcherbatskaya and S. F. Oldenburg); original philosophical understanding of religion (in the works of V. S. Solovyov, N. A. Berdyaev, S. N. Bulgakov, N. O. Lossky, S. N. and E. N. Trubetskoy, A. I. Vvedensky, S. L. Frank); the beginning of a sociological approach to religion (P. L. Lavrov, M. M. Kovalevsky, P. A. Sorokin); meaningful experiments in generalizing descriptions of the evolution of Christian churchliness (V.V. Bolotov, L.P. Karsavin, A.P. Lebedev, F.I. Uspensky) and in general the history of the world’s religions (work by A.M. Klitin; collective work by A. V. Elchaninov, P. A. Florensky, V. F. Ern) - all shades of scientific interest in the topic of religion and significant names cannot be exhausted with this list.

Comparative mythology, philological and ethnographic studies from the field of religious life of different eras and peoples, historical developments (with an in-depth understanding of Russian problems, but also quite consistent in relation to the Ancient World, East and West), independent philosophy of religion - if all this is presented as a holistic organic array of multiplying scientific knowledge, then a monumental image of the bulk of pre-revolutionary Russian religious studies appears.

However, one important circumstance is confusing. When getting acquainted with works that could conditionally be attributed to the religious heritage of “pre-October” times, it turns out that an almost obligatory motive for the vast majority of them is obvious normativity in the interpretations of the material under study. Moreover, the intonations of the evaluative characteristics could vary - ranging from confessional apology to liberal and revolutionary-democratic. But the “equipment” of the researched topic of religion with ideologically charged invective remained constant. Often these topics were important not in themselves, as a subject of objective study, but as a “touchstone” for the polemical expression of various political positions. At that time, scientific analytics had to squeeze in front of social journalism.

What can we do, for Russia, the attitude towards religion is not only a spiritual issue that has a mystical and soteriological sound, but also a significant aspect of the social quest for the path of national development. Therefore, even in purely academic reflection, religion was interpreted, not least, taking into account the “party” predilections of scientists. Let us also add that a significant obstacle to scientific religious studies in Russia was the dominant position of the Orthodox-monarchical church, which dictated its “axiology” to the public consciousness. Familiarity with the experience of foreign religious researchers had little effect on the institutionalization of Russian religious studies. In any case, representatives of the sciences of religion in Russia have not developed (or did not have time to) develop an analogue to the classical understanding of religious studies, in the spirit of Friedrich Max Müller or Cornelis Thiele.

Nevertheless, the level of knowledge about religion achieved by Russian scientific thought by 1917 suggested a completely optimistic prospect for the formation of domestic religious studies, and if this did not turn into reality, then this clearly did not depend on the scientific community itself.

In comparison, the Soviet period looks much sadder - the eerie personal fate of many “old regime” religious researchers is alarming: was there a continuation of Russian religious thought during the times of “mass atheism”? Judging by some current historiographical texts, not only was there, but also is, an undeservedly neglected “legacy.” It is implied that the famous teachers had outstanding students (already among Soviet scientists), so that the current hereditary religious scholars are “the students of those students.” This means that the tradition was not interrupted, wonderful works were created (as an argument one can find a reference to the bibliography of the articles in the two-volume encyclopedia “Myths of the Peoples of the World”), scientific schools arose - that is, Russian religious studies “never died.”

The beginning of “Soviet religious studies” is usually marked by a set of personalities, as if symbolizing continuity with the pre-revolutionary heritage. Among them, the most often mentioned are V. G. Bogoraz-Tan, R. Yu. Vipper, S. A. Zhebelev, D. K. Zelenin, S. G. Lozinsky, N. Ya. Marr, N. M. Nikolsky, L J. Sternberg, although not only them - in the 1920s, many old scientists who survived the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and were involved in the study of religious issues worked in the country. Some of them had “revolutionary merits” from their youth, and in the new conditions this became, not very reliable, but protection for them. Some of them mimicked the colors of the Soviet environment and lived out their lives relatively safely. There were also those who nevertheless came under repression.

They were joined by a younger generation (some of whom managed to take their first scientific steps even before the revolutionary upheavals), whose ideological and research attitudes - some forced, and some quite organically - fit precisely into the Soviet “algorithm” of working with religious material. The fates of these people (V. M. Alekseev, E. G. Kagarov, S. I. Kovalev, I. Yu. Krachkovsky, N. M. Matorin, P. F. Preobrazhensky, A. B. Ranovich, V. V. Struve, I.G. Frank-Kamenetsky, O.M. Freidenberg and many others) also developed differently, but in any case they became instructive evidence of what happens to traditions in science and to scientists themselves when they are subjected to ideological pressure conditions.

One could probably also mention some party “experts on the religious issue,” such as V. D. Bonch-Bruevich, P. A. Krasikov, I. I. Skvortsov-Stepanov, Em. Yaroslavsky and others like them - to varying degrees, but really knowledgeable about the “subject”. However, the “leading” of religion they presented was so specific in content, direction and consequences that the mention of these figures evokes far from academic associations.

At the end of the 1920s and 1930s, that generation of Soviet scientists, mainly social scientists, historians, and ethnographers, entered scientific life (for example, V.I. Abaev, L.N. Velikovich, I.M. Dyakonov, A. M. Zolotarev, A. I. Klibanov, A. N. Kochetov, I. A. Kryvelev, I. P. Petrushevsky, S. A. Tokarev, Yu. P. Frantsev, M. I. Shakhnovich, M. M. Sheinman, etc.), who already took the existing attitude towards religion for granted and knew how to combine personal interest in certain religious subjects with the “current moment.” Over time, they really became teachers (or “teachers,” whose example made them think about what is acceptable or unacceptable in science) for many people still working in the field of religious studies. This “cohort” brought to religious studies, in the field of which some of them did a lot of meaningful work, also specific experience in adapting scientific personnel to political and ideological changes in our society.

In the relatively “vegetarian”, by Soviet standards, period of the 1960s and 70s, something similar to the resuscitation and even the rise of domestic sciences about religion took place. At this time, there was a noticeable increase in religious studies in various areas, and a system of training specialists in “scientific atheism” was emerging (university specialization, graduate school and thesis, defense of candidate and doctoral dissertations). The apotheosis of the legitimation of scientific-atheistic religious studies can be considered the creation and activity of the Institute of Scientific Atheism of the Academy of Social Sciences under the Central Committee of the CPSU. The names of scientists who worthily declared themselves during this period as specialists in the study of religion, and to this day deservedly remain in the lists of cited and mentioned authors (a small fraction of them are A. F. Anisimov, S. A. Arutyunov, E. M. Babosov , V. N. Basilov, L. S. Vasiliev, V. I. Garadzha, N. S. Gordienko, N. L. Zhukovskaya, V. R. Kabo, Yu. A. Levada, E. M. Meletinsky, L N. Mitrokhin, M. P. Mchedlov, M. G. Pismanik, B. A. Rybakov, I. S. Sventsitskaya, A. D. Sukhov, E. M. Shtaerman, D. M. Ugrinovich, I. N. Yablokov). Following such powerful “locomotives”, already in the 1980s, a large number of candidates and doctors of sciences confidently rolled into their tracks, achieving academic degrees and titles under the heading “scientific atheism, history of religion and atheism.”

As a result, the phenomenon of “Soviet religious studies” became established and became institutionalized. Everything in it seemed to be as it should be: academic research institutions, training of specialists in higher education, theoretical works and empirical research, an abundance of publications of any level - from reputable monographs to popular brochures. The only thing missing was the main thing, without which normally organized religious studies cannot exist - indications specifically of religion as a subject research, with appropriate conceptualization of views and development of methodology adequate to scientific knowledge of this subject.

Religious studies (even if it can be called that without quotation marks) of the Soviet era was, we repeat, scientifically atheistic. And the subject of “scientific atheism” - as current specialists who have come out of those years remember - was not explained at all “in the religious studies way”: the formulations were periodically adjusted, but it was never religion; the subject consisted of “two aspects” - the refutation of religious ideas and the affirmation of a scientific understanding of reality. (Only at the very end of the 1980s, for a newly formed specialty called “theory and history of religion, atheism and freethinking,” the concept “essence of religion” was included in the description of the subject).

Of course, with a great desire and using the skills inherited from the “teachers”, it is not difficult to “refute religious ideas” to give the image of serious religious studies. Moreover, the actual content of scientific work in relation to religion changed over the different Soviet decades and was not at all exclusively primitive and colorless. That is probably why there are periodic searches in the tragic times of our history of the twentieth century for evidence of the presence of religious science “even under those circumstances.”

But, paying tribute to the asceticism of many predecessors, we must still admit that the development of religious knowledge was fundamentally blocked by an array of dominant political and ideological institutions. There are memorable situations when deservedly authoritative scientists who wrote about religion, in order to pass on their works, applied to them the masking labels of “history of aesthetics,” “art criticism,” “history of culture,” etc., right up to publication under the heading “library of atheistic literature.” Any “uncoordinated” independent research in the socio-humanitarian sphere, including those affecting its religious aspect, risked being labeled “harmful nonsense”, with all the ensuing repressive consequences.

The manner of ideologically verified design of texts, when the placement of “correct” quotes was mandatory, no matter what topic the research was written on, could not but affect the very style of scientific work. Even two or three decades ago, in “scientific atheistic religious studies,” the collection of a treasury of statements about religion and studying the contributions to this treasury of political figures and “progressive thinkers” of all times and peoples who were “iconized” at that time? were almost more widespread than research religion itself. Of course, facts from the life of religion were also collected, described and systematized at the empirical level. But the ideological paradigm obliged, no matter the texture, to predetermined conclusions about the “reactionary essence”, “ideological bankruptcy”, “decline” and “withering away” of everything that related to the religious culture of mankind. Therefore, as part of the research source base, the determining factors were usually not religious texts, A texts about religion(installation, normative, sanctioned).

You shouldn’t turn to the past just to laugh at it again. In the scientific vicissitudes of the past decades, it is necessary to see not only mistakes and missed opportunities, but also the origins of some subsequent difficulties. In particular, the skill of constantly turning to other people’s (including outstanding) thoughts about religion fostered a masterly ability to hide one’s own or the lack thereof behind them. A common manner of Soviet religious scholars was to transform their own statements into certain links between a set of quotations from permitted domestic and foreign works, when the content of the work itself became a selection of facts, names, titles, and judgments drawn from safe sources. The main thing in this case was not reflection on the problems, but a review of what was ever written about them at different times by one or another author. Such reproduction in some cases could also serve research purposes - in the sense of clarifying the ways in which the subject of interest developed, establishing its connections, interactions, etc. But more often this left the impression of only demonstrating the knowledge and erudition of the writer rather than some kind of analysis.

What has been said, however, does not mean that the “scientific-atheistic” period was completely hopeless. Modern scientists, those who are associated with this period through their own biography, are well aware of how complex the socio-cultural space of Soviet times was. In this space, along with the “plantations” where Marxist-Leninist “philosophers”, “ethicists”, “aesthetics”, “scientific communists” and “scientific atheists” were cultivated, there were territories in which the humanists, whose names are named after Soviet science, were formed may be justified at the “court of the gods.” Anyone randomly selected from the first row of these names, for example - S. S. Averintsev, M. M. Bakhtin, D. S. Likhachev, A. F. Losev, V. Ya. Propp - was, of course, also the deepest researcher of religious culture. But is it proper to retroactively include them in the institution of the Soviet model of religious studies, where none of them would have included themselves of their own free will?

At the same time, the array of “ideologically correct” Soviet “religion specialists” was also not monochrome. After all, the very choice for scientific studies of such a specific topic as religious in its own way testifies to some kind of internal inclination of the scientist, albeit carefully hidden, but sympathy for what is being studied. The desire to comprehend and explain issues of religion, even through “Isthmth” literature, with the scientific honesty of the researcher himself, could give quite a productive result. Many works of the above-mentioned Soviet religious scholars confirm this.

It is curious to see the almost paradoxical situation that developed during the implementation of anti-religious attitudes, when they were refracted through the prism of the rationality and personal integrity of scientists involved in scientific-atheistic work.

For example, we should not consign to oblivion the fact that the academic discipline “Fundamentals of Scientific Atheism”, introduced in higher education in the mid-1960s for ideological reasons, became almost the only permitted source for the vast majority of those receiving a university education, after a long silence. who introduced the religious traditions of the Fatherland and the peoples of the world. A conscientious teacher, to the best of his own knowledge, was able not only to educate, but also to awaken interest in religious topics, to demonstrate an attentive and respectful attitude towards adherents of religions.

The field of museum affairs turned out to be no less interesting in this regard. Already in the 1920s, periodic anti-religious exhibitions from the collections of various museums across the country turned out to be much more significant in their content than the Agitprop installations that brought them to life. Acquaintance with the diversity of spiritual systems, religious communities and cults became the property of the mass visitor.

Of course, it is hardly legitimate to consider the development of such exhibitions as a kind of “hidden” religious studies - the discrepancy between scientists and ideological officialdom could be in formal details, but not in the very principle of presenting religion as a “fading nature.” However, museum specifics presupposed the presence of more or less scientifically competent personnel and, at a minimum, correctness in the presentation of specific material. At the same time, with its decorum and academicism, the museum environment gave the anti-religious policy pursued with its participation a relatively decent appearance; the impression of scientific validity of “militant atheism” was created.

Be that as it may, but in the end, several dozen anti-religious museums and departments at museums of various profiles operating by the 1930s, along with carrying out agitation and propaganda tasks, had the opportunity to conduct some semblance of scientific research work. The State Museum of the History of Religion should be considered a unique institution in this series. Having anti-religious propaganda as its original purpose, GMIR gradually turned into has no analogues in the world a collection of monuments of what, according to the party’s guidelines, his activities should have been directed. The combination of evidence of religious culture and educated people interested in science in the museum space led to a completely natural result: the persecuted became researched, the researched became understood, the understood - perhaps even loved.

A situation arose that presented, in a particular but striking example, the entire fate of the sciences of religion in Soviet times. Intended to prove the “withering away of religion” and the steady increase of “mass atheism,” they diligently embodied this goal, since they were created by people who, for the most part, were sincerely convinced of the immutability of the indicated path. But the object of “criticism,” “struggle,” and “overcoming” was neither an illusion nor a “hostile intrigue.” Religion, as it really is, turned out to be an organic component of the general culture in which both believers and atheists grew up. And this cultural-genetic unity connected opposites into a dynamic integrity, where each element has a functional significance not only in its own definition, but also for other components of the sociocultural system. Thus, religion, having gone through “its otherness” in the form of anti-religious artifacts, revealed itself again as an obligatory component of the spiritual and social complex of Russian life. Comprehension of what happened can be considered one of the leading tasks in the process of self-understanding of current domestic religious studies.

Religious studies in modern Russia is a difficult phenomenon to define. As if it exists quite tangible: there is a state standard of higher professional education, according to which many universities teach students in the direction (and in some cases, specialty) “Religious Studies”; For more than one year, the curricula of educational institutions at various levels have regularly included “Fundamentals of Religious Studies” (or “subsidiaries” - such as “History of World Religions”) in the list of disciplines studied; textbooks and all kinds of manuals on these subjects are published (even cheat sheet collections of “the best essays on religious studies”); in Internet resources there are too many sites for the word “religious studies” for serious reference; Conferences such as “Religious Studies as an Interdisciplinary Science,” etc. are regularly held. Finally, there is a completely physically real, albeit diffuse, scientific community, whose representatives are not afraid to call themselves religious scholars; the respected professional journal “Religious Studies” is published; periodically (with varying degrees of success) attempts are made to form a religious studies community (be it the “Russian Association of Researchers of Religion” or the “Russian Community of Teachers of Religious Studies”; I remember how in recent years the Association of Religious Studies of St. Petersburg was quietly born and quietly died). The volume of scientific publications on religious topics is growing encouragingly; the quality of many of them indicates that current Russian researchers are not inferior in competence to their foreign colleagues.

At the same time, Russian religious studies turns out to be like a mirage, upon approaching which it is discovered that the image of something integral dissipates and quickly disappears, breaking up into fragments in the form of sections (or directions) called “history of religions”, “philosophy of religion”, “psychology of religion”, “sociology of religion”, “phenomenology of religion”, “anthropology of religion” - the series is not exhausted. The concept of “religious studies” appears, as it was said on another occasion, “the name of a thing, but not the thing itself.” In this case, it acts as nothing more than general designation a whole set of specific areas of scientific study of religion, each of which has its own subject area and its own research methods.

The named areas of religious studies did not arise, alas, in Russia and received scientific and disciplinary formalization historically at different times. All of them have their own research tradition behind them, and in addition, a genetic connection with the original scientific fields (general history, philosophy, sociology, psychology) is preserved. Therefore, if by religious studies we mean some kind of unified science with an original categorical apparatus and a self-sufficient holistic theory, then such a concept can be considered inappropriate actual state.

Moreover, the internal processes in the institutional education called religious studies increasingly clearly indicate its artificial nature. The methodological insufficiency of the leading paradigms of classical religious studies encourages the specific directions that grew out of it, once harnessed to the general cart of the “science of religion,” to self-determination and search for their own methods of cognition and interpretation of the material being studied that distinguish them from others. The self-development of religious disciplines has long led to the fact that, as elements of a single whole, ordered in a certain scheme, they exist more on the pages of textbooks (religious studies “edited” by the name) than in actual scientific practice.

However, the focus on shared object research (religion) allows: to unite the separate efforts of these areas - to integrate the knowledge they receive in their subject areas, and to create conceptually related models that correspond to the real existence of religion. In this sense, the concept of religious studies, behind which stands generalized scientific knowledge about religion, developed through interdisciplinary synthesis.

But in order for aggregate knowledge to be not a mechanical sum, but a balanced integrity, it also requires a more or less integral aggregate subject of such knowledge - that is, at a minimum, a coordinated community of specialists speaking a mutually acceptable language of the theory and methodology of religious studies. The current situation of departmental and scientific-disciplinary disunity, as well as methodological confusion (omnivorous?) does not allow us to assert that such a community has already taken shape in Russia.

There is one more feature of the modern life of Russian religious researchers. Under the heading of religious studies, it is logical to imagine the unification and systematization of knowledge obtained by various disciplines studying religion with the help of research tools scientific knowledge. This is where the problem of the relationship between secular and confessionally oriented approaches to the material of religion arises. It is obvious that the “toolkit” of scientific research procedures can also be used in confessional research (historical, sociological, etc.). However, the interpretation of the results obtained in this case must necessarily be adjusted to the doctrinal guidelines of the confession. Even if it turns out to be adequate in relation to a specific religion, then from the point of view of a scientific approach it cannot be accepted as a reasonable generalization for a wider range of religious phenomena. And a religious scholar, if he wants to achieve objectivity in understanding the subject under study, must determine for himself how appropriate it is to adhere to any confessional preference in the research process.

It is known that the religious environment categorically disagrees with judgments of this kind. On the contrary, confessional authors believe that genuine religious studies are exclusively related to the subject from the standpoint of the religious experience of the cognizing subject. The lack of such experience on the part of the researcher is equivalent to his professional incompetence. Therefore, by the way, the usual counterargument to the claims of secular science to have its say about religion is a caustic reminder that, they say, “scratch the current religious scholar and a scientific atheist will emerge.” There is a homespun truth to this. But “atheist scientist” and “religious researcher” are not antonyms at all. And who is without sin?..

Engaging in religious studies does not exclude personal religiosity, but it does not oblige one to be an adherent of any religion. The requirement of objectivity places the content of such an activity outside of any cult practice. The undoubted priority in religious studies is scientific-cognitive attitude to religion. This means that it is considered, first of all, from the perspective of theoretical, empirical and applied research activities carried out on a rational basis. This approach radically separates religious studies from profession of religion, in which knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is subject to the state faith.

With all the authority (or simply mass popularity) of religious faith, among various categories of Russian society there remains a need for scientific knowledge about religion. First of all, there is a significant contingent (no one has measured its scale, but a priori we assume that it is quite noticeable) of the population who are not indifferent to what is happening in the religious sphere of life and at the same time would like to have a clear, objective idea of ​​​​the actual content of processes in religion and in connection with religion. We also include here those who are simply curious, interested in the religious traditions of the peoples of the world in a culturally cognitive manner. It can be assumed (in any case, I would very much like to see this assumption valid) that religious studies in its scientific sense is also in demand at the level of the so-called authorities - for making competent socially significant decisions regarding the situation with the public and state attitude towards religion. But this does not happen often, except perhaps among some representatives of the administrative apparatus who have not yet completely lost their sense of reality.

However, the most interested parties are those for whom religious studies is also a professional activity, a field for scientific and status self-realization, and one of the main life activities. Religion research? this, among other things, is a kind of self-knowledge of scientists united by the field of science that lies behind the concept of religious studies. The productivity of the future of the sciences of religion presupposes a clear awareness of the path traveled, with its achievements and gaps; critical development of knowledge developed in previous times; identification of current trends in religious thought, their current and potential prospects; methodological self-determination of researchers.

At the risk of causing disagreement among some of my colleagues in the “workshop” who have other considerations in this regard, it would still be quite appropriate to say that Russian religious studies as such began to truly establish itself only in the mid-1990s. To clarify, it is necessary to say what is meant systemic state of religious studies: the establishment of relatively ideologically independent research activities, the organization and conduct of regular training of specialists in established educational programs (state standards) of religious studies, the gradual formation of a professional community, the exchange of “ideas and people” with foreign centers of religious studies. The immediate forerunners of such a movement were the initiatives and undertakings of the chaotic turn of the 1980s - 1990s.

As for the preceding Soviet period (whatever the level of scientific developments on religious issues that appeared then), it is difficult to call its inherent treatment of religious material as religious studies proper. It might be more correct to talk about religious thought, which was truly present at all times in Russian scientific life. In general, under the existing order, the academic tradition of unbiased religious studies and the research topics corresponding to it, theoretical and methodological creativity, and professional education programs simply could not take shape.

The atmosphere of the 1990s brought significant changes, liberating research activities. Then the hour of Russian religious studies struck. He suddenly had the right to find his own voice. Not always convincingly, but quite persistently, it began to declare itself, reminding society of the need for a balanced and comprehensively thought-out solution to the problems of religious life, for which the most reliable basis is their scientific understanding.

But a new temptation has also appeared - hypertrophied reverence for foreign concepts, approaches, even terminology. The saturation of domestic publications with references and bibliographies of foreign authors is in itself already considered as the acquisition of some effective scientific methodology. In essence, historiographic awareness simply begins to noticeably prevail over scientific questioning and attempts at explanation/understanding. The predominance of informational presentation over reflection creates the impression that scrupulous consideration of authoritative texts on religion is again preferred to research comprehension of the problems of religion themselves.

Along with this, at all levels of interest in religious studies, an irresistible imprint of mythologized images of religion is revealed. For ordinary consciousness, the religious principle has long acted as an almost magical means, the use of which should help miraculously solve the most pressing social problems. Scientific-theoretical consciousness operates with more realistic ideas, but its bearers often find themselves under the spell of idealized expectations and inspired belief in the universal capabilities of religion to contribute to the comprehensive development of Russia. At the same time, clarifying the actual functionality of religious institutions and practices in the Russian social space remains on the periphery of public attention.

Moreover, consideration of existing approaches to the development of systematized religious studies allows us to highlight one of, perhaps, the key features of the study of religious issues in Russia. It seems to be that such an activity has never been purely academic; it is closely associated with many conflicts in the ideological and socio-political spheres of the country’s life. The determining influence of these spheres is not a thing of the past and is still reflected both in the actual attitude towards religion in Russian society and in the state of its scientific understanding.

The constant “wedging” of normative ideological guidelines into theoretical work, gaps (for political reasons) in empirical information, the long-term isolation of domestic religious thought from the full development of foreign scientific experience,? all this and much more blocked for a long time the possibilities for the normal development of the sciences of religion in Russia. Therefore, when the previous obstacles seem to have lost their effectiveness, their consequences still inertly affect research work.

The issue of training religious studies personnel requires special attention - first of all, at the level of higher education. Today's students of religious studies do not have in their “biographical situation” the experience of scientific-atheistic balancing act, and this is their advantage over many mentors and teachers. On the other hand, the prospects for applying the acquired religious knowledge among current students are very vague. The demand for religious scholars trained in secular educational institutions remains unarticulated, bumps up against initiatives of “clerical revenge”, and even in the existing professional religious studies environment is interpreted ambiguously or incomprehensibly.

All this once again encourages religious studies to self-reflection, when the key question becomes: why does it exist - to sort through the texture of religious life like interesting objects, describing and arranging on shelves (periodically removing it to admire or achieve some commercial goal), or constantly inquisitively to invade the world of religion with thought, so that through its comprehension we can go to the knowledge of man and society? The ways of self-understanding in religious studies are varied. This includes the reconstruction of its status in the history of science, the establishment of its own origins and development milestones. This includes defining your subject area, its specific features and differences. This also includes identifying those urgent research tasks that are within the power of religious studies.

By the way, it can be noted that the achievement of a certain integrity by religious studies is only a necessary historical stage of its existence, but not the final state. Having passed the institutional stage in its development, religious studies has the prospect of entering a qualitatively new (for now more intuitively emerging than consciously formed) cultural space - unified knowledge system about the world and man. Obviously, in such a system of knowledge, a prominent place will belong to non-scientific forms, especially religion. It is religious studies in this situation that can become a kind of intermediary through which the achievements of religious culture and scientific knowledge become mutually accessible and open to integration. Despite the complexity of the historical path of Russian religious studies, only it turns out to be the effective means by which Russian society has a good opportunity to achieve optimal interaction between religious and secular culture.

As one of many examples: the Slavophile Yu. F. Samarin, in a discussion in 1876 about the works of F. Max Müller, analyzing the academic religious works of a foreign scientist, found the opportunity to speculate about the spiritual expansion of Western Christianity into the “Orthodox world” (See: Samarin Yu. F. Two letters about the fundamental truths of religion. Concerning the works of Max Muller “Introduction to the comparative study of religions” and “Essays on the history of religions” / Translated from German // Samarin Yu. F. Works: In X? vol. (Vol. ?–X, X??) / Prepared for publication by D. F. Samarin. – M., 1877–1896, 1911. – Vol. V?).

See: Shakhnovich M. M. Essays on the history of religious studies. – St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Publishing House. University, 2006. – P. 181.

This encyclopedia, needless to say, is an outstanding work. But collectively, the majority of the bibliography for articles in both volumes consists of works not by domestic, but by foreign researchers. The scientific awareness of the participating authors is respectful, the analytical nature of many articles is admirable, but the paucity of original Soviet research indicates the real state of scientific life at that time.

Atheism in the USSR: formation and development / Editorial committee: A. F. Okulov et al. - M.: Mysl, 1986. - P. 221–234.

Published at the height of “perestroika,” the latest official (“according to the plan of the All-Union House of Political Education under the Central Committee of the CPSU”) mass (circulation - 200,000 copies) publication on “scientific atheism” in the list of recommended literature contained 50 works by K. Marx, F. Engels , V. I. Lenin; 11 publications of documents of the CPSU and its leaders; 11 information and reference works on the promotion of atheism (including the 9th edition of the “Atheist’s Handbook”); 30 publications on history and the contemporary state of atheism, free-thinking, overcoming religious influence in all areas from science and politics to family and everyday life; and only 13 publications directly devoted to various religions of the world (in their critical coverage). See: Scientific atheism: A textbook for the system of political study / Ed. M. P. Mchedlova. – M.: Politizdat, 1988. – P. 297–300.

For a similar episode, for example, see: Likhachev D.S. Favorites: Memoirs. – Ed. 2nd, revised – St. Petersburg: Logos, 1997. – P. 422, 425.

See: Bakhtina V. A. Poetics of the “Christian epic” in the light of the ideas of V. Ya. Propp // Kunstkamera. Ethnographic notebooks. Vol. 8–9. – St. Petersburg: Center “Petersburg Oriental Studies”, 1995; Bibikhin V.V. Alexey Fedorovich Losev. Sergey Sergeevich Averintsev. – M.: Institute of Philosophy, Theology and History of St. Thomas, 2004; M. M. Bakhtin as a philosopher / S. S. Averintsev, Yu. N. Davydov, V. N. Turbin and others - M.: Nauka, 1992.

Current Russian religious studies are quite adequately represented, for example, by the publication: Religious Studies: Encyclopedic Dictionary / Ed. A. P. Zabiyako, A. N. Krasnikova, E. S. Elbakyan.–M.: Academic project, 2006. The level of modern St. Petersburg religious studies can be judged, in particular, by the thematic issue “Religion: Interdisciplinary Research” in the scientific journal of St. Petersburg State University (Bulletin of St. Petersburg University - Ser. 6. - 2004. - Issue 4).

For a convincing explanation of this, see: Krasnikov A.N. Methodological problems of religious studies. – M.: Academic project, 2007.

As the author of this article, I will allow myself to refer to my own justification for this thesis: Smirnov M. Yu. Basic parameters of interdisciplinary research of religion // Bulletin of St. Petersburg. un-ta. - Ser. 6. – 2001. – Issue. 1.

See the reasoned opinion on this issue of one of the leading modern Russian religious scholars: Elbakyan E. S. Religious studies and theology: general and special // Third Torchinov Readings. Religious studies and oriental studies: Materials of a scientific conference. St. Petersburg, February 15–18, 2006 / Comp. and resp. ed. S. V. Pakhomov. – St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Publishing House. University, 2006.

A striking example of this can be considered the theoretical and methodological developments of Evgeny Alekseevich Torchinov, especially his 1997 work “Religions of the World: Experience of the Beyond: Psychotechnics and Transpersonal States” (it seems appropriate to refer in this regard to the article: Smirnov M. Yu., Tulpe I. A. Scientific thought and position of a scientist: towards the formulation of some questions of theoretical religious studies // Religious Studies: Scientific and Theoretical Journal. - 2004. - No. 1).

Successful evidence of the gradual overcoming of this state by Russian religious studies (for example, recent research publications: Religious practices in modern Russia / Edited by K. Rousselet, A. Agadzhanyan. - M.: New Publishing House, 2006; Faith. Ethnicity. Nation. The religious component of ethnic consciousness / Editorial team: M. P. Mchedlov (chief editor), Yu. A. Gavrilov, V. V. Gorbunov, etc. - M.: Cultural Revolution, 2007) are sadly neutralized by the meager circulation of these publications.

Smirnov Mikhail Yurievich ? Dr. Sociol. Sciences, Associate Professor department Philosophy of Religion and Religious Studies, Faculty of Philosophy and Political Science, St. Petersburg State University

M.Yu.Smirnov,Study of religion in Russia: the problem of self-identification.

In this article the author considers some historical, theoretical and methodological aspects of religious studies in Russia. He offers to distinguish some evolutionary stages of the study of religion during the Soviet period and analyzes them. The most part of this article is dedicated to the contemporary problems of Russian religious studies self-identification. Different questions concerning increasing diversification in new approaches to the study of religion are analyzed.

PUBLICATION:

Smirnov M. Yu. Religious studies in Russia: the problem of self-identification // Vestnik Mosk. un-ta. Ser. 7. Philosophy. 2009. No. 1. (January–February). pp. 90–106.